Is Being A Good Photoshopper Becoming More Important Than Being A Good Photographer?
Jan 29, 2015 11:08:55 #
Elliott Design wrote:
Mac, if it's the same model, no, there are no spec... (show quote)
That's good that you don't have to deal with the legal stuff. :D
Thanks for answering.
Jan 29, 2015 11:10:29 #
This discussion has been repeated countless times elsewhere. Best described as "flogging a dead horse." Use whatever tools are available to produce a great image that will connect with the viewer. Talking is a waste of valuable time.
Jan 29, 2015 11:10:37 #
There is an Arizona Highways photo contest and if you take a look at all the landscape finalists, you will notice that all of the images have been blended exposures and even composited. Good computer skills go a long way these days. It is the beginning of a whole new era.
Jan 29, 2015 11:10:51 #
Mac wrote:
I don't know. A good photographer should be able to get the exposure right enough the s/he doesn't need to add things in photoshop.
Being a good photographer doesn't mean you don't have post processing. There is way more to the final post process than exposure.
There are almost no images published right from the camera. Someone has done post on it somewhere along the line. Everything from school portraits to landscapes.
The only photographers in the past that had to "get it right" were the ones in the 1800's when what they shot in the camera was printed there and given to someone on the spot. I used to run an Old Time Photo booth at the county fairs for a couple of years. Those prints were one of a kind. The advantage of those were that you could repose the people and shoot it again if it didn't come out right.
Jan 29, 2015 11:13:33 #
Mac wrote:
I was going through Flipboard this morning and came across an article "How To Add Clouds In Photoshop." And it made me wonder if this is where photography is headed: pick a subject, pick a foreground, pick a background, then blend them all together in Photoshop.
Mac in general I agree with your assesment. There should be truth in advertising if a photo is a collage of various different components it should be so stated. Not presented as one photo.
But if there is PP needed to adjust for the mediums weaknesses like Ansel Adams did then this is still taking a single photo and making it represent what the eye saw at that moment in time.
Jan 29, 2015 11:15:29 #
Everyone just needs to do their own thing. There will never be a consensus when having a circular conversation. The customers will decide what they like. Economics always wins out.
Making your photos more pleasing is a plus in my book. Case in point... The reality lovers would never make it as portrait photographers! "But, you really do have all those wrinkles." To me that pretty much says it all. People see "reality" everyday in the mirror, or in life around them. Sometimes, they just want something beautiful in their lives. Doesn't matter if it was post-processed. This should not be taken as a snub by the realist photogs that are prideful when it comes to taking the most perfect photo they can. That desire and talent will always be appreciated by many. But, creating a different vision by way of photography is equally appreciated.
Making your photos more pleasing is a plus in my book. Case in point... The reality lovers would never make it as portrait photographers! "But, you really do have all those wrinkles." To me that pretty much says it all. People see "reality" everyday in the mirror, or in life around them. Sometimes, they just want something beautiful in their lives. Doesn't matter if it was post-processed. This should not be taken as a snub by the realist photogs that are prideful when it comes to taking the most perfect photo they can. That desire and talent will always be appreciated by many. But, creating a different vision by way of photography is equally appreciated.
Jan 29, 2015 11:20:41 #
Jan 29, 2015 11:38:13 #
Jan 29, 2015 11:51:21 #
Mac wrote:
I was going through Flipboard this morning and came across an article "How To Add Clouds In Photoshop." And it made me wonder if this is where photography is headed: pick a subject, pick a foreground, pick a background, then blend them all together in Photoshop.
I agree with your thought. We're all different about this, it seems. I am all for creating improvements as much in post as possible or using HDR. But it bothers me when a picture is a cut and paste version of more than one image. Ansel Adams did a lot of work in the darkroom (negative and print) to get what he envisioned when he took the picture. I bet his final product looked better than the real scene. But I don't think he pasted numerous images together to get an entirely new image.
My 2 cents.
:)
Jan 29, 2015 11:54:19 #
Richard Carpenter wrote:
There are other reasons for the use of programs like this. I am a children's pastor and we write most of the programs we do, to make it exciting and relevant. One series was a parody of the amazing race. We had to take the kids around the world without leaving our own town, and have our characters in it as well. Thank goodness for software that helps me accomplish this goal and gives us such creativity to teach our kids.
Yhat sounds like fun man!
Jan 29, 2015 11:55:27 #
INshooter wrote:
I agree with your thought. We're all different ab... (show quote)
Psst, wher in IN are ye? I be a Hoosier too. Mulberry, Clinton Co.
Jan 29, 2015 11:59:04 #
Michelangelo chiseled away every bit of marble he didn't feel contributed to the statue--Ansel Adams spent far more time in the darkroom than he did taking pictures--to quote him "'The image your camera captures is only the starting point for creating the image that is in your mind"--but what did Ansel know?
Stan
Stan
Jan 29, 2015 11:59:29 #
show1971 wrote:
Someone still has to be a good photographer to pull off good Photoshop. Photoshop is only a tool, like your camera and lens.
Some people use Photoshop to produce original illustrations. In that respect PS is the electronic equivalent of brushes, pigments and canvas.
But like all tools PS can not do all things. Artists would ge able to tell us what some of the limits are.
With respect to photographs, what is altered changes the scene to camera recorded. Sometimes good, othertimes not so much.
Jan 29, 2015 11:59:29 #
I'm afraid I have to disagree. I think it all depends on what you want to do. The shot I attached is an image that I had a lot of fun making, but it doesn't exist in reality. It's not a brilliant piece of art. Nor is it any attempt to convince the viewer that it's real. But it was an exercise for me about what I could do with several different images shot (all by me) at different times. It is in fact some five different images. The moon and silhouette seagull are dead giveaways. But the reflection of the light from the ferris wheel is a separate sunset. In fact, when I took the shot, all that separated me from the pier was sand. Remember. Salvador Dali painted melted clocks.
Jan 29, 2015 12:06:15 #
INshooter wrote:
I agree with your thought. We're all different ab... (show quote)
Ansel Adams didn't make composite photographs, but lots of other photographers have throughout the history of photography. Check out the work of Jerry Uelsmann if you aren't familiar with it. All produced in the darkroom with multiple enlargers: http://www.uelsmann.net/ You are free to be bothered by it, but it has been a part of photography from the beginning.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.